Water Baptism NOT Necessary for Salvation!

[believers]

Including Jesus?

He is not a creature that sinned.

Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the annointed one, the Son of God.

Rom 3:23
For all (man, the image of God) have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (theos);

You have categorized Jesus with man (all have sinned)… when you should be categorizing Jesus in the “God” part of that verse.

 

[Crumpy]

But the baptism Jesus received from John was not the baptism other people received from John; or rather, its effect was not the same because it was Jesus. The baptism for Jesus was analagous to the anointing of David, I think, and this is impressed further by the appearance of the Holy Spirit descending upon him. It was the start of his Messianic activity, just as the anointing of David was the start of his Messianic activity.

I heard one minister explain water baptism. First, I’ll interject that Catholics don’t believe in “water” baptism, in the sense that non-Catholics express it. Catholics believe it is an action that confers grace, with water as the outward symbol.

Back to the minister. He explained that the water mikvah baths of the Jewish tradition and the baptism of John involved water because it was a symbolic throwback to the account of the flood.

Water symbolized the judgement and condemnation of God, and that is why Jesus “had” to be baptized, to take on Himself the condemnation for sins.

I rather like that, because symbols in the Bible are not just used for anything, they convey and carry a lot of meaning. Jesus’ baptism was a superior mikvah, because it further employed flowing, i.e. living, water. His baptism was also distinct by its location as different from the temple mikvah baths.

I also like the minister’s explanation because of the other details of Jesus’ baptism. Just like the temple high priest imputed the sins of the people on the scape goat which was then led into the desert, Jesus also goes into the desert because the sins of the world have just been imputed to him.

I think His journey into the desert represents His willingness to die (by exposing Himself to the dangers of the desert).

The baptism is recorded in all four gospels, as I recall. It’s terribly important. And, John Paul II put the event as the first Luminous Mystery of the Rosary. Jesus reveals Himself and is witnessed to by the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Muslims deny the Deity of Jesus or that He died, etc. They don’t understand His baptism in the desert, for sure. Their prophet never did anything close to what Jesus did here.

Your baptism should be one of the happiest days in your life, or should make you happy to think of it.

We are not only baptised with water, but we are anointed with oil, which among other things, points to God’s magnificent plan of salvation for those He has chosen.

 

[Gamera]

He is not a creature that sinned.

Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the annointed one, the Son of God.

Rom 3:23
For all (man, the image of God) have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (theos);

You have categorized Jesus with man (all have sinned)… when you should be catogorizing Jesus in the “God” part of that verse.

Either “all” means literally “ALL” or it doesn’t. Jesus was a man, Jesus did not sin. Therefore it is not literally true that “ALL” men have sinned.

Don’t be afraid to understand that Paul is using hyperbole. Look, if I said it was raining cats and dogs outside, you wouldn’t LITERALLY think cats and dogs were falling — you would understand my words were a metaphor. That doesn’t mean they weren’t true. They were true – they just weren’t meant to be taken literally. Here, rather than a metaphor we have a hyperbole. Paul says that “all” have sinned. The context shows that he means all peoples, both Jewish and gentile. That’s what he means by “all.” It isn’t inaccurate, but it isn’t meant to be taken literally, and we know that because Jesus was a man who didn’t sin. It’s a hyperbole, that’s all.

I think we are running around in circles here. You and I agree that it is very unlikely that the baptized baby would live their adult life without sinning, which really was our point, so maybe we should pursue that line of discussion rather than start to get un-Christian.

 

[believers]

Either “all” means literally “ALL” or it doesn’t. Jesus was a man, Jesus did not sin. Therefore it is not literally true that “ALL” men have sinned.

Don’t be afraid to understand that Paul is using hyperbole. Look, if I said it was raining cats and dogs outside, you wouldn’t LITERALLY think cats and dogs were falling — you would understand my words were a metaphor. That doesn’t mean they weren’t true. They were true – they just weren’t meant to be taken literally. Here, rather than a metaphor we have a hyperbole. Paul says that “all” have sinned. The context shows that he means all peoples, both Jewish and gentile. That’s what he means by “all.” It isn’t inaccurate, but it isn’t meant to be taken literally because Jesus was a man who didn’t sin. It’s a hyperbole, that’s all.

I think we are running around in circles here. You and I agree that it is very unlikely that the baptized baby would live their adult life without sinning, which really was our point, so maybe we should pursue that line of discussion rather than start to get un-Christian.

Yea… well you put Jesus in the “all have sinned” when He is in the “God” part of that verse. God (theos) refers to the Trinity and Jesus just so happens to be part of that regardless if He was in flesh form.

Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Anyway… I’m done for tonight. You should consider looking at Romans 3:23 in the Greek. It will make more sense.

 

[Gamera]

Fair enough … we can pick it up over the weekend.

Good night and God bless you.

 

[Nazianzen]

Yes, he said it was the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Notice he did not say it was infant water baptism.

Notice he didn’t say WHAT kind of baptism he was talking about. You need the Church to fill in the gap there.

 

[Nazianzen]

Notice he does not say “Baptism only for adults and don’t use water.”

Great minds think alike.

 

[Nazianzen]

Pro 15:10 Correction [is:

grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof SHALL DIE.

Sheesh. Using scripture to make someone feel threatened. How very Christian of you.

 

[Church_Militant]

The age of accountability means a person is not responsible until they are old enough to be held accountable for their actions. The age could be different from person to person. I don’t remember what age it was in the OT but I do think it was around 20. I believe this to be true in the New Testament as well.

You’d better make this case scripturally because I am pretty sure that you are dead wrong here and that in fact there is no such thing discussed in the Word of God.

If all have sinned means exactly what it says then I’d appreciate an explanation as to when exactly a diaper dirtying child sins? I have yet to see an infant that is willfully capable of sinning. Does all apply to these as well? How about someone who is mentally incapacitated from a birth defect? “All” again? How about my sainted Mom who died not even recognizing me from the dementia of Alzheimer’s disease? “All” again? If in her dementia she said something grossly unkind or even sinful, if she is held to account for that as sin, then that is like condemning someone for having a cold, which I have never seen anywhere that the Word of God even implies such.

Yet I do see many accounts in the New Testament where it plainly says that whole households were baptized.

The point is that the blanket “all” argument just defies God-given common sense and Christian compassion.

 

[Nazianzen]

Please see 1 Thessalonians Chapters 4 and 5 for the real Christian traditions.

The problem here is that you have no evidence that these are the only examples of doctrines/practices conferred by tradition. What you mean is that these are TRUE traditions as opposed to those UNTRUE Catholic traditions, which is an arrogant assumption altogether. You cannot prove this by sola scriptura.

 

[Nazianzen]

Nowhere does it say to reproof with tradition.

This is because nobody questioned the authority of the church until the heretics came along. You do realize that probably the first ones to do so were the Arians (who used Paul to come to their own novel Christology). And we have their spiritual successors among us today: the JWs. They reject the doctrine of the Trinity because they have no tradition or council to clarify the scriptures and fill in the blanks for them. At least they’re consistent.

Let me ask you: do you believe in the Trinity in the way that the CC believes (and as the council of Nicea, St. Athanasius, and the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed teach?). That God is not One with three “modes”? That there are three Persons in the Trinity, and all are made up of one Substance? “God from God, light from light, true God from true God”? That Jesus isn’t a creature Who “was in the form of God,” and “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped”? Do you believe all this?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

ALLFORHIM;2101138:

Nope.

That was the easiest post I have ever read. Direct and to the point. LOL

BTW the quotes you are quoting come from me not Gamera. Sometimes the quote button messes up I guess.

 

[Nazianzen]

Nazianzen;2101761:

That was the easiest post I have ever read. Direct and to the point. LOL

BTW the quotes you are quoting come from me not Gamera. Sometimes the quote button messes up I guess.

All in a day’s work!

Yeah, I don’t know what’s going on with that. It just does it automatically. I think Gamera put up a post pointing out the error.

Like it did in this post.

 

[Church_Militant]

The problem here is that you have no evidence that these aren’t the only examples of doctrines/practices conferred by tradition. What you mean is that these are TRUE traditions as opposed to those UNTRUE Catholic traditions, which is an arrogant assumption altogether. You cannot prove this by sola scriptura.

This is a good point and his assertion doesn’t hold water.

Acts 20:35: In all things I have shown you that by so toiling one must help the weak, remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, `It is more blessed to give than to receive.’"

There is no record of Our Lord saying this in any of the Gospels. Doesn’t that make this a tradition?

Another place where he is out of luck is in the Epistle of St. Jude, (the next to last book of the Bible) where it says…

Jude1:9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” and 14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,
15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Please, by all means show what books of the OT these verses are from.

Trick question? Yep! They’re nowhere in the OT. In fact they are taken from two Jewish traditional writings. Verse 9 is from to the Assumption of Moses and the other are from the Book of Enoch.

It sure looks to me like the apostle Jude took traditional writings to be factual and even prophetic. Do you suppose that he knew something that the Catholic Church always has and that n-Cs do not?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

First, do you know that there is no documentation for the sacred Tradition? (I don’t know the answer, myself. Just wondering if you can back up what you’re saying here).

Yes I do know this Like you I do have faith that the HS guided the church to what went into the bible. All of this is about FAITH–you either have it and believe all of this to be true Tradition or not or you question everything. That is why I prefer to stick with the bible as my only infallible source. It has given me all I need to date:thumbsup: Still learning:thumbsup: God hasnt ever let me down. I also have faith and trust that He will never let me down.

P.S. No one has told me if there is any scriptural support for baptism by desire.

I wont be around too much today. My son had his opening day of baseball and then a game.

I’ll be back when I can. Thanks a bunch!!

 

[Nazianzen]

Yes I do know this Like you I do have faith that the HS guided the church to what went into the bible. All of this is about FAITH–you either have it and believe all of this to be true Tradition or not or you question everything. That is why I prefer to stick with the bible as my only infallible source. It has given me all I need to date:thumbsup: Still learning:thumbsup: God hasnt ever let me down. I also have faith and trust that He will never let me down.

P.S. No one has told me if there is any scriptural support for baptism by desire.

I wont be around too much today. My son had his opening day of baseball and then a game.

I’ll be back when I can. Thanks a bunch!!

I know of no scriptural support for baptism of desire. Sorry to disappoint. I’m glad you recognize that where we got to the canon. I think that the fact that the church decided on the canon definitively has some serious implications that most protestants don’t think about. But you seem intelligent and honest enough to realize that. You have to decide why you believe the councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Rome and not the council of Trent and the Vatican Councils.

Have fun at the game today.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, it does. But you claim that water baptism performs this and it does not. You must believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and repent.

Here’s a question for you then…

If a baby is water baptized and never sins… is this person saved?

Please show in the bible where it says “baptism is only for adults”. Also, you did not answer my question about what type of baptism Jesus was giving. I will agree with you, however, that when it involves adults, it means that the candidate must believe the gospel and repent.

Acts 2:37-39

37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Scripture teaches us that when a person hears the gospel, their faith may be kindled, and they may repent. Once a person has believed the message and is repentant, they are to be baptized for the forgiveness of since, and receive the gift of the HS. This is the same HS that came to Jesus when He was baptized. If He was willing to undergo baptism to fulfill all righteousness,and thereby recieve the HS, why should we all not? Are we better than the master?

In answer to your other question, yes, if an infant is baptized and never sins they will be saved.

Hi,

I went through all of the scripture you presented here and Im not sure what point you are trying to make It all still boils down to faith you either have it or you dont and if you do then you will obey Christ out of love not out of obligation.

Yes, it all boils down to faith. If you have faith in Jesus, you will follow His commandments. He commanded baptism. yes, all sacraments should be approached out of love, and not obligation.

 

[Gamera]

Yea… well you put Jesus in the “all have sinned” when He is in the “God” part of that verse. God (theos) refers to the Trinity and Jesus just so happens to be part of that regardless if He was in flesh form.

Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Anyway… I’m done for tonight. You should consider looking at Romans 3:23 in the Greek. It will make more sense.

God says that NOT “all” men have sinned in the sense that you mean “all.” Look at Luke 1:6, which describes Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth (parents of John the Baptist). “Both of them were righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord BLAMELESSLY,” Luke 1:6.

“Blamelessly!” It’s right there in Luke 1:6. Zechariah and Elizabeth were BLAMELESS. This cannot be true under your interpretation of Romans 3:23 that literally ALL human beings have committed personal sin.

A few verses earlier, in Romans 3:10-12, Paul quotes from the Old Testament to say, “None is righteous, no, not one …” Look at what Paul quotes from to understand the reference. Paul here quotes from Psalm 14, which says :

“The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, THERE IS NONE THAT DOES GOOD. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike and corrupt; THERE IS NONE THAT DOES GOOD, NO, NOT ONE. Have they no knowledge, ALL THE EVILDOERS WHO EAT UP MY PEOPLE as they eat bread, and do not call upon the Lord? There they shall be in great terror, FOR GOD IS WITH THE GENERATION OF THE RIGHTEOUS.” Psalm 14. 1-5.

See? Psalm 14 contrasts “all,” meaning all EVILDOERS, as opposed to the HIS PEOPLE, (verse 4) who are RIGHTEOUS (verse 5). That is what Paul quotes from in Romans Chapter 3, verses 10-12. He is quoting a verse in which “all” obviously does not mean every single human being.

Under your reading of Romans, there are NO righteous people, because “all means all.” But Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. We must understand one Scripture in light of the others. God says that there ARE righteous people who have not committed personal sin, including Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). Therefore we know that “all” does not mean literally every human being, because then Luke 1:6 would be in error.

 

[clmowry]

clmowry;2101236:

ALLFORHIM;2101138:

So if baptism of desire isnt even in scripture then how can it even possibly be true. When I read the catechism on it it didnt even say that any Apostle passed it on. You know a thought just popped into my head. You know how the CC talks about oral Tradition and that it is passed on orally right down to today----well then wouldnt there be some sort of documentation that says that this Apostle says this or Jesus said this? Why would the CC not write that down? I mean look at all the problems it is causing You really cant trace oral tradition back to the apostles unless you can trace them back to who said what. Do you see what I mean. Sorry if Im not clear it really just popped into my head as I was writing.

I didn’t mean to imply that everything the Church teaches comes directly from the apostles.

We believe that the teaching authority of the Apostles has been handed down through the Holy Spirit to the Bishops united with the Pope.

New questions and discent have and will continue to arise.

The aposltes didn’t provide us with any explicit moral instruction on artificial contraception, abortion, assisted suicide, cloaning etc.

Just like they didn’t provide us explicit theological instructions on Christ’s nature, the Trinity, baptism of desire, etc.

But I can be certain that Christ will guide His Church in all truth neessary for our salvation.

Just as I trust that Christ has protected and handed on scripture through his Church, I trust that He will lead the Church to truth in all other matters of faith and morals.

Chuck

 

[ALLFORHIM]

ALLFORHIM;2101289:

clmowry;2101236:

I didn’t mean to imply that everything the Church teaches comes directly from the apostles.

We believe that the teaching authority of the Apostles has been handed down through the Holy Spirit to the Bishops united with the Pope.

New questions and discent have and will continue to arise.

The aposltes didn’t provide us with any explicit moral instruction on artificial contraception, abortion, assisted suicide, cloaning etc.

Just like they didn’t provide us explicit theological instructions on Christ’s nature, the Trinity, baptism of desire, etc.

But I can be certain that Christ will guide His Church in all truth neessary for our salvation.

Just as I trust that Christ has protected and handed on scripture through his Church, I trust that He will lead the Church to truth in all other matters of faith and morals.

Chuck

Thank you for that explanation. I agree with you about Christ guiding His church–we just have a different definition of the church. But that is a different thread